Tarek Barakat

Blogger and commentator

12/09/2010

I am an Atheist! Well… maybe Agnostic since being an Atheist would require me to know something that I obviously have no ability to know. But you catch my drift. I believe that all religions, no matter how much truth they hold, are man made. Therefore the questions at hand are difficult for me to answer based on personal principals. Since Agnostics/Atheists want to see less religion and places of worship everywhere. That said I am a firm believer that just as one must not be coerced into a certain religion they shouldn’t be coerced out of it either.

The Ground Zero Mosque debacle speaks much less about how Americans view Islam as much as it does about their vulnerability to be coerced into fearing it, or anything else for that matter that an opposition party in an election year can use to gain seats. But if we are to take this mosque as an example let’s point out a few facts. First, IT IS NOT A MOSQUE!!! It’s a community center with a gym, a restaurant, and an auditorium which also includes a prayer area. People who are familiar with Middle Eastern culture, and specifically with the Gulf region, would know that prayer areas exist in most public spaces, for example in offices, malls and even parks. This is distinctly different from a full structure dedicated to being a mosque (i.e. with minarets, dome, etc.). Moreover, as mentioned by many, more capable, commentators (i.e. bloggers, journalists & pundits etc…), this whole debate would have been a non-issue had it been January 2011, a non-election year. There are several other reasons varied in validity on why the development of this project should continue. But the most important one is that US law protects it, period.

Which leads to the key question at hand; to what degree should governments interfere in the size, height and location of religious minorities’ worship centers and to what extent should the state be able to impose regulations on religious clerics and institutions to ensure adherence to local values and laws? In a democracy the answer is relatively simple, as much as they see fit. National judiciaries always supersede other legal institutions, even when you take into consideration basic international human rights. Even in countries governed by religious law, it is still technically a judiciary system that rules. But what about absolute monarchies, dictatorships, authoritarian regimes and other similar lovely forms of government? The answer in my humble opinion is, for better or worse, as much as these governments see fit too.

Democratic governments have to answer to their people on a cyclical basis during elections. But in between elections, governments are supposed to, and should, uphold the rule of law and govern the country based on what has been deemed best for its citizens. They do not govern on the basis of what citizens might “feel” about a particular subject. If the public stands adamantly against a government decision, for instance the decision to go to war, there are ways (demonstrations, lobbying, public campaigning, etc…) to voice disapproval or even overturn the decision. But, more often than not, it has been the case that governments have forcefully introduced laws protecting minorities against the wishes of public opinion at the time. Ending slavery and providing equal rights to ethnic and religious minorities as well as women are but a few examples.

Obviously we don’t live in an ideal world. Clashes on political, religious and cultural ideologies are a fact not only between nations but within them as well. These clashes are not only an outcome of differences but a necessary evil in the evolutionary process of nation building. In a way, it is an unpleasant yet healthy phenomenon. This rosy viewpoint may, however, be difficult to defend when discussing oppressive forms of government. One may give several examples of oppressive regimes utilizing animosity toward minorities to gain public support. Nazi Germany is one such example. Their fear mongering toward Jews, Gypsies, gays and other minority groups began as small ‘regulatory actions’ but latter snowballed and was used to garner massive support to push their political agenda to catastrophic results. Even today, politicians in several democratic nations (for example Geert Wilders in The Netherlands or The Nationalist Swiss People’s Party) use anti-minority and populist rhetoric to gain votes in the polls, often to great success. So in such scenarios, and as the saying goes, who watches the watchmen? I personally don’t see myself capable of answering such a question and instead will take the easy way out by using a generic categorizations that MOST undemocratic nations’ leaders still know what is ‘right’ more than their citizens might. (With the exception of a handful of nations that have total psychopaths for leaders.) Because these governments’ survival is, more likely than not, based on suppressing certain information and rights from the public which means even more so, citizens are unable to make the right decision with the limited information provided to them. Besides, chances are the public in these countries have more vital rights suppressed to worry about than sermons of minority religions.

Finally I don’t believe having a uniformed international set of rules should be agreed upon for several reasons. Religious & cultural diversity is exactly that and different nations have to deal with completely different set of challenges than others might face and therefore it will be a struggle to draft an agreement with an international consensus. But mainly because you might as well be asking for world peace and end of hunger, it simply will never happen. I also believe that while an international agreement might stop oppression in some countries it will also suppress the evolution of religious diversity and coexistence in other more progressive cultures. Progressiveness that Agnostic & Atheists like myself exclusively rely on in hope of others finding ‘the light’.

Bio: Tarek Barakat is a Syrian & Dutch National, living and working in Dubai as marketeer in the fashion industry. Amature blogger and commentator with interest in International and Middle Eastern Affairs.

interesting observation.
however, i personally disagree with you on one point which is the ground zero project; so whether it’s a typical mosque with a minaret & dome or a community center or even a nightclub, it will still have the same impact on the opposition as long as it’s labeled as islamic entity.

and whether the reasons behind this western hysterical panic of muslims and their hate to islam are right, logical & justified or not and even if the US law protects the freedom of worship, i still believe that such project in this specific location & even name is quite symbolic and conveying a provocative message to these people whom the majority is split between brainwashed and ignorant probably as much as most of the people in eastern dictatorships & authoritarian regimes.

which didn’t surprise me when i saw the amount of anger risen in the entire muslim nation when such laws as the veil ban proposed in france or the mosques’ minarets ban proposed in switzeralnd, while in most of these angry people’s countries, building a church is not allowed and if it is, the building has to look neutral without carrying any religious symbol!!!

both sides feel hated and fearing each other’s power and intentions that might be overestimated sometimes, but who can blame any of them after all what happened and still happening?!

solving this endless debate which the grounds were accumulated over the years and doubled up in the last decade, requires a lot of things that starts with a minimal understanding from both parties to the opposite point of view and perception the which has to be supported by a governmental honest approach that lacks all the prominent manipulations which of course and for obvious reasons, will never happen!

i am not sure what you disagree with. my point was to correct people who are calling it a mosque just to inject fear in the ignorant masses. Even if it was a full blown mosque i would still support building it. but there is no doubt that the american right have called it a mosque when it’s clearly not, to enlist more opposition to the democrats prior to the elections

Exteral Article

you’re supporting the project despite its proposed location which is simply my point of disagreement. i’m personally against it, not for anything but the fact that the majority of both, eastern & western communities are neither mature nor educated enough to get over the recent past and accept each other’s cultures and segregate between religions, terrorism and the real potential threat of the political & economical hidden intentions.
so in [...] Read More

my opinion, this project considering the current situation, wouldn’t add anything but fire up.
you think that correcting the perception of the project from a mosque to what it really is as a community center would ease the fear but i think that no matter what, it’ll still have the same impact on those ignorant masses as long as it’s linked to islam.
your point regarding the elections is taken and i totally agree but on the other side, why the people behind this project, as moderate & highly educated as they’re known to be, choose this specific location which is a case sensitive to a majority that still doesn’t differentiate between a religion & terrorism which gives a chance to “the bad guys” (in many ppl’s opinion) to link islam AGAIN to a horrible memory that the west didnt get over yet? while at no doubt they knew it’ll create such a mess.
it could have actually been a great initiative to correct the image of islam and and help a lot of american muslims suffering the rejection of their society to get some acceptance, only if it was in a different location.
i’m not sure if you had a chance to read the article i’m attaching here but if not, have a look and you might know why i’m against ground zero!

Marwa you will probably agree with what Dr. Sadek Al-Azm wrote (first article at Islam Comment):

“In any case the organizers and financial backers of the project have already made so many concessions to the opposition as to render the whole idea pointless. For example, they agreed to change the name of the Center from the tell tale “Cordova House” to the utterly bland street address of “Park 51”. They denied that they are building a mosque in the first place. And they reassured everyone concerned that no casual passer-by would not recognize the Center for what it is from its outside appearance. In other words, no minarets and no revealing Islamic architectural or decorative features. Given these demeaning and humiliating concession, it would be more dignified to relocate the Center to a spot where there will be no need to conceal its identity in such a ridiculous manner.”

Exteral Article

i absolutely do! i read it and couldn’t agree more. i also agree with the post of Mr. Ayman Hakki however i disagree again on one point in the latter’s article, which is the thought of moving the project elsewhere, and before anyone thinks i’m contradicting myself, i’m still insisting that i’m totally against the project’s current location. but giving up and moving it now will probably make things [...] Read More

worse.

they should have considered and thought about that way in advance!
i personally believe, that now they’ve got no options but resisting, take the risk, bear all the potential threats and cross their fingers that their project sees the light and prove its promised aim.

— though, and after reading such as the attached article lately, i have my doubts on the capability of Imam Abdul Raouf to run the show who was quoted: “Mr. Abdul Rauf, who always emphasizes the center’s interfaith agenda, its location near ground zero is essential to its message of healing 9/11’s wounds and promoting moderate Islam”

I obviously disagree completely with your notion that they should have chosen a ‘better’ location to avoid offending people. i would have even supported a full blown mosque, or anything else for that matter on the actual ground zero not just near it. if of course, the all parties didn’t break any laws. This project had so much potential to be marketed as bridge between cultural and religious differences. A powerful message that Americans can rise above petty stereotyping and religious discrimination, that the wrongs happening in some muslim countries towards other religions does not justify another wrong in the US. Kill them with kindness so to speak. Plus of course, give American muslims who have the same rights as any American to their constitutional rights to pray where they wish, not where others feel they should pray.

And while I see his point, I also disagree with Dr. Al-Azm suggestion to move the project elsewhere to save its identity. I believe there is more to be won by staying and losing some of that identity than relocating. Showing the world that this project is an ordinary and peaceful one once it’s finished will be the valuable asset and worth staying and fighting the bigotry and populist bullshit that is being steered by politicians in an election year. War against prejudice requires knowing when to pick your battles and also knowing when to compromise as the Park51 organizers did for the long-term good of their goals.

I agree with you , the cultural center has to be there it is planned there and got approval there and should be there to show the American public that Muslims can do more than building Mosques , they can serve their communities ,

The other most important reason is that any change now will cause more hostility toward the US and i am not afraid about our troops in Afghanistan only , I am more fearful about alienating American Muslims who have felt till now that they belong and probably president Bush deserve credit for that , and that is something the US should not risk , we see what is happening in Europe ,
Having 60 to 70% against the Islamic cultural center should not prevent the US from doing the right thing , during the civil war the majority of American were against freeing the slaves and during the civil rights movement the same was the case , still the US managed to do the right thing and building the Islamic cultural center is the right thing to do for the US future .